Public Health or Brockovich Wealth?

By Michael Fumento

That Brockovichs firm would use this photo is revealing (in more ways than one) of how her own employer views her attributes.

The Harvard School of Public Health
(HSPH) has just announced its giving its highest honor to Los Angeles paralegal
Erin Brockovich,
best known for her virtual beatification
in the allegedly "based on a true story" film
of the same name. Julia
Roberts portrayed her as having the mouth of a hooker but a heart of
gold. Yet the Hollywood Brockovich is bunk, and this is not Harvards finest
hour.

HSPH gives its Julius
Richmond Award to those who "have promoted and achieved high standards
for public heath conditions." In this case, according to a response to
outraged HSPH alum (American Council on
Science and Health President Elizabeth
Whelan), its for Brockovichs efforts "on behalf of all of us, and
especially the residents of Hinkley, California, whose health was adversely
affected by a toxic substance dumped by a utility company."

Do you feel benefited? You shouldnt. Heres why.

The California Cancer Registry
showed no excess cancer
in Hinkley compared to surrounding counties, despite the claim of Brockovich
and her law
firm that they suffered terribly high rates from exposure to chromium-6
in drinking water. Indeed, there was no evidence of any excess illness
at all.

Further, according to the Environmental Protection Agencys toxicology
web site, "No data were located in the available literature that suggested
that chromium-6 is carcinogenic by the oral route of exposure." Indeed,
"Exposure to chromium-6 in tap water via all plausible routes of exposure,"
even in extremely high concentrations, concluded
"the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, poses no
"acute or chronic health hazard to humans."

The true beneficiary of Erin Brockovich has the initials "E.B." She
pocketed a bonus of over $2 million in
the Hinkley case, although many residents who truly were sick (albeit
not from chromium-6) never
got a dime.

Hinkleys water didnt make anybody sick, but it certainly made Brockovich rich.

"These statistics are 20
times higher than the national average for these specific cancers,"
Brockovich told a credulous media, creating hysteria among both former and
current students. "I have 300 cancers staring me in the face and an oil-production
facility underneath the school," Brockovich also claimed.
"It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that the two fit together."

Well then, how about a cancer expert? Under a contempt
of court threat her firm admitted
it had no data regarding excess cancers at the school. Further, the
Beverly Hills Courier reported that long after Brockovichs "300 cancers"
assertion her firm had filed only 216
complaints of which only 94 concerned cancer. University of Southern
California epidemiologists also found
no unusual rate among former students.

Brockovich also insisted that air samplings collected by a lab shed
hired showed massive levels of benzene,
a human carcinogen. "When they came back I said "I cant believe this."
So we went four times, five times, six times," Brockovich
claimed. "And each time we were getting the same results."

I know personally of Brockovichs not only foul but forked tongue. She
told the New York Times Sunday Magazine that she challenged me
"a million times" to debate her. Try zero. In fact, when Vassar College
tried to arrange a debate I instantly said yes and waived any honorarium;
she demanded a fee she knew the school couldnt afford. When Australias
"60 Minutes" flew me to LA for a segment
on Brockovich, I suggested they try to arrange a joint appearance.
She refused them.

That mere film-goers would be confused about Brockovich is understandable. But you might think the Harvard School of Public Health would do a bit more research before giving awards than merely watching a movie.